UPROAR IN THE HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21598, 19 March 1932, Page 12

UPROAR IN THE HOUSE

APPLICATION OF CLOSURE LABOUR PARTY INCENSED TWO MEMBERS SUSPENDED MESSRS P. FRASER AND J. A. LEE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March 18. The most sensational incident to disturb the tenor of Parliament’s way for many years occurred about 5 o’clock this morning when two Labour members, Messrs P. Fraser (Wellington Central) and J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn), were suspended for the remainder of the sitting for the persistent use of unparliamentary language, which they just as persistently refused to withdraw when requested. Angry words were freely exchanged at various intervals during the night, which witnessed an exceedingly stubborn stonewall debate on the final stages of the Arbitration Bill. Notwithstanding the closure machinery the Government was unable to stem altogether the tide of Labour’s talk, nor to temper the violence of their expressions, though the division bells rang frequently bringing the guillotine down heavily on extraneous debate. The incident leading to the suspension developed with dramatic suddenness. The committee was discussing clause 7, which is the Bill’s vital clause providing that unanimity must prevail in the Conciliation Council before an industrial dispute may be referred to the Arbitration Court, and a great deal of attention was paid by Labour members to the question of women workers. Mr Coates was engaged in a verbal crossfire with Labour members upon the definition of compulsory conciliation, and at the end of his speech he moved that the closure should be applied, as there were several amendments tabled to clause seV en. Mr Fraser rose and asked if the closure motion applied to the whole of the clause and so prevented the House from discussing the position of women workers. Not waiting for the Minister to reply, the Chairman of Committees (Mr S. G. Smith) replied in the affirmative. « Well,” Mr Fraser said, “ that is the most contemptibly mean thing I have ever known.” Immediately there was uproar in the chamber. Labour members joined in a chorus of approval, and added their comment. The chairman asked Mr Fraser to withdraw, and Mr Fraser refused. Mr Lee: That is cowardly in the extreme if you refuse to amend this clause to give consideration to women workers. It is the clause of a Parliament of curs. The chairman turned to Mr Lee and asked him also to withdraw, and he, too, refused. “Do you persist in that attitude! asked the chairman. “Yes, I persist,” Mr Lee replied. Mr Coates: Now don’t get too excited. , . ~ Mr Lee: I won’t. You have not the decency nor the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the women. The Chamber was immediately an uproar of excited members arguing hotly with one another across the floor. Government members awoke from their slumbers in their benches and others trooped in sleepily from the lounges where they had been awaiting the hells. The chairman meanwhile had sent for the Speaker to report the incident, and as tiie hubbub died down somewhat the Labour members continued to make pointed remarks about the Government. “ You are a gang of incompetent political cowards,” said Mr Semple. Mr Lee: There is not a protest among them.

Mr Murdoch rose to a point of order. “ Sit down, you cur,” called Mr Lee. “ Sit down, you rotter.” ' Mr Langstone: Baby killers. Mr Semple: Yes, sit down. You are only a shadow ox your old mam Mr Murdoch (angrily) : Whom are you talking to. Mr Semple: To you. You rob women of the right to live decently. That’s what I think of you. Mr Murdoch (hotly): I’ll give you an opportunity to prove that. Further murmurings were interrupted by the arrival of the Speaker, to whom the position was first explained by the chairman.

When the Minister had moved the closure Mr Fraser had risen to a point of order and asked if that involved the whole clause, preventing a discussion on women workers, Mr Smith said. Receiving an affirmative reply, Mr Fraser had used the words complained of. Having related the incident, the chairman said he had no option but to call the Speaker. Explaining his position, Mr Fraser said there was no doubt he had used the words “ Contemptibly mean.” Mr Semple; And there is no apology either.

Mr Fraser added that the Labour members were anxious that something should be done to protect women in industry from the operation of the particular clause, and he had used the words when the Minister intimated through the chairman that the closure would apply to the whole clause. “ That being my honest opinion,” he said, “I refused to withdraw the words.” The Speaker: These words are, of course, most unparliamentary. Mr Fraser: I am aware of that. The Speaker: That being so, the only thing to do is for you to retire from the Chamber. Mr Fraser walked out. Mr Lee then explained his position. He knew that the words were unparliamentary, he said, but believing them to be true he refused to withdraw them, though he preserved great respect for the Speaker himself. Mr Lee then walked out. The Speaker said the House would have to deal with the position. He suggested that the members might be called in again and given an opportunity of withdrawing and their case be dealt with later. Labour members: It is no good getting them back. The Prime Minister: Now is the time to deal with it. The Speaker said the Prime Minister would have to move for the suspension of them both. Mr Coates said he was afraid that Mr Fraser’s temper had carried him away at the moment. The point Mr Fraser had raised was answered by the chairman. “ I had in mind only the amendment before the committee,” Mr Coates said. Labour members: You said the whole clause. Mr Coates said there was already a new clause tabled dealing with women workers, so that the question of women workers would have to be discussed in any case. The Prime Minister asked the Speaker for an instruction, as he had never encountered a situation of this sort. The Speaker said there was no parallel case during his nine years in the chair.

Mr Holland said that nothing would be gained by calling the members back to the chamber. It was quite understood that the motion to safeguard women workers would be affected by the closure. If the Minister had grasped the situation and expressed his willingness to apply the closure only to the amendment before the committee the misunderstanding would not have happened. As it had happened, however, the Prime Minister had better move whatever motion he liked. It was a principle that was involved, and not a desire to flout the rules of the House or the Chair. Mr Parry and Mr Howard expressed their opinions on the incident. Mr Howard said the chairman had made it quite clear that the closure would end the debate on the whole of clause 7, including the question of women workers. Mr Coates: The closure was intended to apply to the whole of the clause, but I had before me on the table a new clause to be moved later by the member for Lyttelton relating specifically to women workers. Mr Semple and Mr Armstrong both rose to speak, but the Speaker said there should be no further discussion on the question. The only thing to do was to call the two members back and explain the position to them and give them an opportunity to withdraw. Mr Semple: Is there no defence? The Speaker: The offence is admitted. Nothing may be said condoning it. The Sergeant-at-Arms was despatched to summon Mr Fraser and Mr Lee. Only Mr Fraser returned. Upon the position being explained to him Mr Fraser said that in the circumstances his attitude was unaltered. Before making a decision, however, he would prefer to consult with Mr Lee, whose remarks were contingent upon his (Mr Fraser’s). Mr Fraser again withdrew, and on the Speaker’s suggestion the Prime Minister adjourned the House for 15 minutes to enable the members to consider their position, and for the whole incident to be considered. Agreeing to this proposal the Prime Minister said he wished to find a way out of the unpleasant incident. When the House resumed, Mr Fraser and Mr Lee were summoned. Mr Fraser thanked the House for the opportunity afforded him of considering the facts and consequences of the incident. In view of the fact that the action of the Minister in moving the closure was to eliminate discussion on a vital clause of the Bill, he realised he would have done the Minister an injustice had the Minister intended that the closure should apply only to the amendment and not to the whole clause. Looking back over the whole circumstances of the case and recognising that the words were unparliamentary—he would not dream of calling them otherwise—and while he felt compelled to defy to some extent the ruling of the chairman, he thought he had no course to adopt hut to adhere to the words used. Mr Lee explained that he had used the words as the result of a disturbance occasioned by a difference between Mr Fraser and the chairman. He did not use them with any degree of heat; in fact, he had never used words with a greater measure of deliberation. He regretted to have to come into conflict in any way with the Speaker, for whom he had a sincere respect. At the same time, in the circumstances he had no intention of withdrawing the words. “ I would not be telling the truth if I said I used the words in the heat of the moment,” he said. “ I used them deliberately, knowing them to be as unparliamentary as they were true.” At the Speaker’s request the two members again retired. “ I think nothing remains but for me to ask the Prime Minister to move a motion,” said the Speaker, who added a suggestion that the suspension should apply for the remainder of the sitting. Mr Forbes said he regretted that he, as Leader of the House, should be called upon to move a motion of suspension. He then formally moved that Mr Fraser and Mr Lee should be suspended for the remainder of the sitting. Mr Holland rose to debate the question, but the Speaker said there must be no debate, Mr Armstrong: Well, there will be no further sitting. Labour challenged the motions, which were put separately. Both suspensions were carried by 39 votes to 21.